Teaching Chinese law in BrazilBy Chang Wang, contributor

November-December 2019 / PAGE 13www.chinainsight.info education

Wishing you all the joy and peace of the holidays.

25450

5 x 7

4C

wellsfargo.com© 2019 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. All rights reserved. IHA-25450

Enjoy the season!Last month, at the invitation of FGV Escola de Direito de São Paulo (FGV Law School in São Paulo), I taught a weeklong condensed course on the development of the modern Chinese legal system titled “Rule by Law in China.” It was attended by 26 graduate, undergraduate, and international exchange students.

Fundação Getúlio Vargas (Getulio Vargas Foundation, or FGV) is a Brazilian higher education institution and think tank founded in 1944. It is considered by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania as the top think tank in Latin America, best-managed think tank worldwide, and seventh-best think tank in the world. FGV Law School in São Paulo’s “Global Law Program” con-sists of a set of courses taught in English. The purpose of the program is to prepare lawyers to work in an international scenario since Brazil has been increasingly present as a global player.

The “Rule by Law” in China course provided a comprehensive overview of law and politics of 20th and 21st-century China in their historical and cultural contexts. It introduced Brazilian students to distinctive paradigms and discursive patterns of law and politics in China, with the intention of fostering comparative analysis and critical thinking. Initially, the course focused on modern Chinese history since 1840, paying particular attention to traditional Chinese views of the role of law in society, as well as to the legal and political aspects of early Sino-Western interaction. The second part of the course focused on substantive laws, high profile legal cases and major political events in the People’s Republic of China in modern times. The course concluded by examining current issues in Chinese law from both sides, and by looking into China’s argument for the “Beijing Consensus,” or “China Model.” The classes progressed by way of interactive discussion and critical readings of historical documentation and legal texts.

This course was designed to break through the traditional Chinese learning/western learning dichotomy and interpret legal cases, political events and cultural phenomena from a comparative perspec-tive. It brought to light the hidden rationales underscoring historical and ideological nar-ratives and explained how frequent misun-derstandings could occur when comparing political systems and cultures. Students were encouraged to use critical thinking to argue, to test whether the incommensurabil-ity of paradigms can be reconciled, and to explore how different political systems and cultures can communicate with each other and exchange ideas effectively.

This course took a comparative study approach in discussing the development of legal and political discourses, and the ever-increasing influence of Western juris-prudence and political science, in modern and contemporary China. The students and

I discussed at length the formation of “Rule by Law” as a “grand narrative” in its his-torical context and the controversy around different interpretations of individual rights.

The course began with a study of legal traditions and core assumptions underly-ing the role of law in China, followed by a comparative analysis of respective legal conventions and beliefs in China and West-ern countries. One full session was devoted to the legal system of the People's Republic of China, looking at the law promulgated in the 1950s, the abolition of the legal system during the Cultural Revolution, the renewed emphasis on codification of law since 1979, new areas and issues after China’s acces-sion to the WTO, the recent Constitutional Amendments, and the upcoming Civil Code in 2020. The course introduced contem-porary legal and political institutions, the law-making process, interpretation and implementation of law, dispute resolution, extralegal practices, and public awareness of, and attitudes toward the law. The course also included a detailed examination of con-temporary China’s approach to individual rights, with a focus on the ways in which Chinese authorities and academics interpret key doctrines of public international law, including 1) the traditional relationship of the individual to the state; 2) rule by law vs. the rule of law; 3) judicial independence and judicial integrity; and 4) due process.

The course examined Western, espe-cially German and American, influences in specific areas of Chinese society and what role German and American jurisprudence and the concept of rights have played in the “modernization” of China. Attention was given to cross-cultural misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and the interaction between culture and law.

Brazilian students looked at China’s place in the world, evaluated general as-sumptions of universal values, described the dominant ideology and its development and variations, and compared the legal conven-tions and beliefs of different cultures. The course helped students develop a better understanding of the political system and culture of China from a comparative per-spective, and it will help them predict legal actions and outcomes across cultures.

Course readings included translated laws, regulations and party policies, legal cases, historical documents and commen-taries. Viewings for the course included selected feature and documentary film clips relating to the Chinese legal and political systems, as well as Chinese artistic expres-sions devoted to legal issues.

Before the course, all students were required to answer various questions: 1) Reasons for taking the class; 2) Expecta-tions; 3) Knowledge of China and Chinese legal system 4) Questions about China and Chinese legal system; 5) The first individual/person to come to mind when they hear the word “China”? 6) Where they obtain infor-mation about China? And, 7) Whether they had encountered any miscommunication or misunderstanding situations with Chinese people? Did they know why that happened?

In addition to lectures on substantive laws (constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, commercial laws) and historic lessons on Confucianism, legalism, “Self-Strengthening”/Foreign Affairs Movement (1861-1895); “100 Years of Humiliation”

and Equal Treaty System (1939-1949); Extraterritoriality; the Cultural Revolu-tion (1966-1976); the trial of the Gang of Four (1981), the course utilized traditional Oxford-style debate format for class discus-sions, with one side proposing and the other side opposing a sharply-framed motion.

Before the debate begins, the entire class (except the debaters) registered their pre-debate opinion (for, against, or undecided) by a vote. Each panel/team consists of one-to-two students, arguing for or against a particular motion. Firstly, alternating be-tween panels, each team gives a five-minute opening statement. Secondly, the floor was opened for questions from the entire class and inter-panel challenges. Thirdly, the debaters had one final opportunity to sway audience opinion through their two- to three- minute closing arguments.

The entire class (except the debaters) delivered the final verdict by voting again after the debate, whether they were for, against, or undecided on the proposition. The two sets of results were compared, and the winner was determined by which team had swayed more classmates between the two votes.

Sample topics debated in class and on writing assignments included: living in Chinese and Western parallel universes, Confucianism and Maoism, the Communist Party of China (CPC), whether China should adopt Western-style rule of law, whether an ethical Chinese lawyer should place the CPC ahead of client’s interest, etc.

By the end of the course, students were able not only to locate and critically evalu-ate resources and materials on China’s legal and political systems, history and current affairs, but also understand the diverse phi-losophies and cultures within and across the society. Specifically, students were able to

understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Chinese legal and political system; they were aware of the differing viewpoints regarding universal values (justice, liberty, freedom, democracy, individual rights) in China and the western world; and they were able to compare competing arguments, and analyze the evidence supporting these arguments, basing their analyses on those differing viewpoints.

On the final debate on the motion that “Western-style liberal democracy has failed, ’Beijing Consensus’ (China Model) is win-ning.” The debate reached a tie, and we con-cluded by declaring that both western-style liberal democracy and Beijing Consensus are winning. ♦

FGV Law School faculty interviews Chang Wang

Chang Wang is a Senior Associate Professor of Law and Academic Adviser to Graduate Students at the College of Comparative Law, China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), the top law school in China. He is also an attorney with Kingsfield Law Office and a member of the University of Minnesota China Center Advisory Board. He holds multiple adjunct professorships at law schools and business schools in the US, China, Europe, Australia, and Brazil. He is specialized in immigration law and business law.